R.I.P. – Elsmar’s Cove

For those who are in the same career field; you’ll recognize the name.
The Elsmar Cove Mission
To be a free Business Standards Compliance and Business Systems Information Resource to Quality Assurance, Engineering and Management Professionals.
People Helping People since 1996!
 
Sorry, folks. After over 19 years continuously online, starting out as QS9000.com, Elsmar.com is now permanently closed.

There’s nothing else I can say, other than that I am proud to know that over the last 19 years tens of thousands, probably more like hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people have been helped, for free, by some wonderful people who have voluntarily helped people with answers to their business standards and other questions over the years in the Elsmar Cove forum.

Hadn’t stopped in there in a while, I wish I had. There was a lot of useful information and great people in the forums. Many thanks to all who made it a success over the past 2 decades.

 

 

Because The Law Stops it.

I generally have avoided talking about Jason Kilgore aka “Balrd Odinson” as simply not being worth the time or effort. His blog probably attracted less attention then mine did; even while I wasn’t posting :)

But every now and then, Jason writes something that is so incredibly dumb that I just have to mention it.

Back on May 11, Oregon’s new background check bill (SB941) was signed by the Governor.  At last, every gun purchase and transfer in Oregon must require a background check, including private sales.  

No longer will felons, the dangerously mentally-ill, wife-beaters, minors, or any other prohibited person be able to purchase a gun simply by answering an ad, meeting someone in a parking lot, and paying cash, with no background check.  The seller, too, will be held accountable, and will no longer be able to simply claim ignorance.

Yep, because a LAW was passed people will not be able to do something. Note this isn’t the people won’t be able to legally accomplish something, Jason is stating that it will not be possible ! I wish we had known that was all it took years ago, we could have made it against the law to rape, rob, murder…….oh wait……

 

This is not ignorance, this is deliberate and willful lying about what will happen. People won’t suddenly stop breaking the law. How I know that? The Obama Administration’s National Institute of Justice tells me (PDF alert)

To understand the value of background checks it is essential to understand the source of crime guns. Several sporadic attempts have been made to learn how criminals acquire guns. For example, a 2000 study by the ATF found the following distribution of sources

Source                                    Percentage
Straw purchase                    47%
Stolen                                     26%
       Store  14%
       Residence  10%
       Common carrier   2% 
Unregulated private seller  20%
Gun shows/flea markets    13%
Retail diversion 8%
             Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% since some sources fall into multiple categories (e.g. unregulated seller at a flea market)

These figures indicate informal transfers dominate the crime gun market. A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.

Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. Let that sink for a minute. NO effect of the new background check laws; can we simply agree that Einstein’s Definition of Insanity applies here?

Please join the discussion.

 

Let’s talk Liberty, Shall We?

Sorry I’ve been a little absent lately; work had me out of town on travel. I don’t know about others but when I travel on business; it makes for some really long days. I’m normally at the location early in the morning, staying till business close and often getting another hour or two of work back at the hotel.

I knew the travel is coming up so there is no excuse for not scheduling post; other than lackawanna/motivation.

Today, I would like to expand on a comment and conversation from over at Perfectly Frank.

Can I suggest one? The topics you’ve suggested (like Liberty for example) feel way to broad to me. I’m sorry if that is insulting to you. Right now I have no idea what you’ll take as insulting and what you won’t.

How about “Smart Guns”. Can we talk about those? Can we talk about the left’s assertion that the NRA nearly put Smith and Wesson out of business over smart guns? As a technologist I may be biased, but I’d REALLY like to understand the logic there.

P.S.S. Microstamping also seems like another good candidate for a “narrow” debate topic, if you’d rather

Yes. The topic of liberty is very broad – but that is exactly the conversation we should be having before we even think about discussing anything like smart guns or microstamping. To me, starting a conversation at smart guns is pointless unless we have decided at least the broad outlines of what rights, what liberty, what freedoms we have. And what restrictions on those freedoms is ‘reasonable’.

So in the interest of debate, how about some less broad topics regarding liberty?

How about topic idea #1 — The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty.

As it actually says in the Constitution, As it is has been held in court after court. Including two recent Supreme Court Decisions (Heller and Mcdonald). Until we have agreement that liberty; everything else is useless to talk about. To steal a phrase, we need a national conversation on just exactly what does it mean to “keep and bear”.

Should people be allowed to carry a firearm in most places? Should most people, including felons, have the right to keep and bear arms. Talk to me about why we allow felons to drive, to marry, to speak, to have protection against unreasonable search and seizure but we don’t allow them to own and carry a firearm. Are they not worthy of protecting their lives with firearms?

Talk to me about why the ‘full faith and credit’ clause applies to my driver’s license but not my concealed carry license? Do my rights stop at the state border?

What type of “arms” is covered under that fundamental right is another area of topic. Before we get to microstamping or smart guns; tell me why I shouldn’t be able to own a howitzer cannon, a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile or a Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. Little difficult to put a stamp on a plasma burst, eh.

Topic idea #2 — Governmental restrictions on liberty should be narrowly tailored.

For many people, this will be “DUH”. There is an entire doctrine of court decisions regarding this.

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection.

This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a “fundamental right” is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

  • There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and

  • The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

Let’s really have an interesting conversation on what ‘narrowly tailored’ means. I don’t need a license to speak in public but I need one in Texas to exercise my right to carry a firearm outside of my home. Shouldn’t we agree on this incredibly important subject; or at least have a basic agreement; before we move onto yet another law?
And we definitely need to come to an agreement that prohibiting an entire class of firearms, such as the Washington D.C. Gun ban, the Assault Weapon ban tried to do, is not narrowly tailored. We have to agree that it is wrong to ban 10+ round magazines because someone used them to commit a crime. 

That brings up something else you said Frank,

More than one republican leading member of the Supreme Court has stated publicly that the second amendment is not about giving all guns to all people with no rules.

That is a straw man argument; unless you can come up with a quote with those words. What was said in the Heller decision.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

And very importantly but often overlooked is that Footnote #26 which says.

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and I did stay in an Holiday Inn but that was last week; so  take this for what it is worth. But I don’t see that as the blanket protection of existing laws. I see it as a simple statement that a.) the Supreme Court was not asked to determine the status of those laws and b.) they are clearly not stating those laws are constitutional at this time. They could be…..but that is another court case or dozen to come.

Topic #3 Liberty will result in the loss of lives.

It is not cold and heartless to say this but simply a reflection of reality. We could save lives by banning air-travel; hundreds of people die each year in plane crashes. But we accept that having the freedom to travel is worth the risk and the loss of life. We could save lives by making everyone eat in government ran cafeterias that serve only healthy and nutritious meals; but family meals are important and the freedom to choose more so. We could save lives in tens of thousands of ways but we choose, deliberately, willfully and knowingly to allow liberty even if it costs lives to do so.

We have to come to an agreement that people will choose to do idiotic things; people will choose not to become proficient with devices; that people will make bad decisions about narcotics, alcohol, etc and the safety of themselves and others. Trying to mandate perfect decision making process with anything is ridiculous but that is the basis for many gun control laws. Things like ‘Safe Storage’ or even Smart Guns.

 

Topic #4 – I have the Liberty to defend myself, my family and/or friends/others.

Not just in my home but on the road, in stores, in church – with few exceptions; people should be free to use the most effective means of self defense, yes or no?
This is one of the important ones we have to talk about. I have health issues — Asthma to be exact – which means some self defense products like O.C., pepper spray, mace, etc are really hazardous to my health even if used correctly. My wife is physically weaker than many women (due to breast cancer surgery) much less than most men; she shouldn’t have to try to wrestle or fight hand to hand to defend herself. My daughter, my sons, etc shouldn’t have to try to fight off multiple attackers with just a TASER. We should be able to decide for ourselves what means of self defense we want to use.

We already have a process in place, and it seems to work quite well, to determine if someone used violence in self defense or not. Banning firearms from places where people go doesn’t make much sense to me. Which brings up another thing you said — the part in bold this time.

 

More than one republican leading member of the Supreme Court has stated publicly that the second amendment is not about giving all guns to all people with no rules. Just like the first amendment gives free speech, it doesn’t allow you to walk into a movie theatre and yell fire.

 

That is a really bad analogy. See it is still perfectly legal to walk into a theater and yell fire if there is a fire. What gun control advocates like you want to do would be the equivalent of muzzling people when they go out in public so they couldn’t yell, much less yell fire. Currently to carry a firearm in public, in the State of Texas, I have to get a license in which I have to pass a background check, pass a proficiency test, pass a knowledge test, be approved by the state !!!! Could you imagine the same restrictions on you if you wanted to simply go to the theater and talk?

And yes, I have the liberty to defend myself with firearms that you may not think are appropriate. You don’t get to decide what is right for me. Several states have ‘approved rosters’ of firearms that can only be sold in there states. That is ridiculous. Many gun control advocates argue that I don’t need (show me in the Bill of Rights where NEED is mentioned) an AR-15 or a magazine with more than 10 rounds or a small concealable pistol or a cheap firearm (Saturday Night Specials). You want to make those restrictions then I get to demand you exercise your free speech with just a quill pen and parchment. Or stand on a soapbox in the public square.

 

Want to keep going on the subject of liberty? We certainly can narrow it down and discuss it. I think it should be very clear why I wanted to start with such a broad topic before we move onto something like microstamping or smart guns.

So Frank and everyone else, please join the discussion.

Politcs and firearms.

Anti-Rights cultists, like “Perfectly Frank”, usually try to do two things; first they want to make firearm related violence simplistic (There are too many guns) and second, they usually try to paint gun owners with a broad brush.
Frank tried it with his “Adding Color To Firearm Death Rates” . He took the very simplistic approach of ‘determining’ which states are ‘Red’ (Conservative) and which states are “Blue” (Liberal); of course the top states with high firearm death rates are predominately Red. I left a reply – actually two – with links or the images below. That was Thursday; funny how there has been no reply since then.
These images are still very simplistic but add a layer of information or two.

First, as I showed with the city statistics for the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex; not every area is the same. Especially not at the state level like Frank is trying to imply. I really like this first graphic; everyone has seen it. It shows some major cities in relation to the firearm death rates of other countries. Of course these aren’t ‘advanced, developed, western, handpicked nations’ so I’m sure some people will claim the comparison is invalid.

 

, e

 

The last graphic shows the voting pattern, broken down by county level, for ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states. Amazing how Red the country looks at this level of detail; much different from Frank’s list by state.

 

 

And when we look at the homicides by city and then look at the counties those cities are in; an amazing thing happens — it looks like many of those cities are voting liberal !!! Oh no, doesn’t that kinda run counter the ‘conservative’ areas are killing others more often?

Now, there are some important differences between urban and rural areas that need to be addressed.

Objectives. We analyzed urban–rural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban–rural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Cities have nearly twice the firearm homicide rate of rural areas while rural areas only have a slightly higher rate of suicide. Other distinctions have been noted.

Background: Family physicians can play a vital role in preventing gun violence, and better data on which to base their interventions might result in more effective prevention efforts. Using Washington State data, two assumptions on which interventions can be based were tested: compared with urban areas, rural areas have (1) a higher percentage of gun deaths from shotguns and rifles, and (2) a higher percentage of gun deaths from suicides and accidents.

This is important as we consider that suicides are much more common then homicides and the types of gun control laws proposed by anti-rights cultists are unlikely to address the most common rifles and shotguns used in rural suicides. That is unless they push for really draconian laws.

I won’t get into the debate about whether or not we suicide should be illegal. I’ll just note that very few of the gun control laws proposed by any of the antis address suicides.

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

Going off Memory, seems about right

The last time I was out in Arizona, the temps didn’t quite get as high; it just felt like it.

.

.

Has anyone heard from Minstrel and his Better Half lately?

State Statistics

Frank over at Perfectly Frank put up a post; one we often see from gun control advocates.

I’ve taken his chart – from the VPC and added a column.

Rank State Firearm Related Rate Firearm Ownership
1 Alaska 19.59 57.8
2 Louisiana 19.15 44.1
3 Alabama 17.79 51.7
4 Mississippi 17.55 55.3
5 Wyoming 17.51 59.7
6 Montana 16.94 57.7
7 Arkansas 16.93 55.3
8 Oklahoma 16.41 42.9
9 Tennessee 15.86 43.9
10 New Mexico 15.63 34.8
11 South Carolina 15.6 42.3
12 West Virginia 15.1 55.3
13 Missouri 14.56 41.7
14 Arizona 14.2 31.1
15 Nevada 14.16 33.8
16 Kentucky 14.15 47.7
17 Idaho 14.08 55
18 Indiana 13.04 39.1
19 Georgia 12.63 40.3
20 Florida 12.49 24.5
21 North Carolina 12.42 41.3
22 Michigan 12.03 38.4
23 (tie) North Dakota 11.89 50.7
23 (tie) Maine 11.89 40.5
25 Oregon 11.76 39.8
26 Colorado 11.75 34.7
27 Utah 11.69 43.9
28 Kansas 11.44 42.1
29 Pennsylvania 11.36 34.7
30 Ohio 11.14 32.4
31 Delaware 10.8 25.5
32 Texas 10.5 35.9
33 Virginia 10.46 35.1
34 Vermont 10.37 42
35 Wisconsin 9.93 44.4
36 Maryland 9.75 21.3
37 South Dakota 9.47 56.6
38 Washington 9.07 33.1
39 Nebraska 8.99 38.6
40 Illinois 8.67 20.2
41 Iowa 8.19 42.9
42 California 7.89 21.3
43 Minnesota 7.88 41.7
44 New Hampshire 7.03 30
45 New Jersey 5.69 12.6
46 Rhode Island 5.33 12.8
47 Connecticut 4.48 16.7
48 New York 4.39 18
49 Massachusetts 3.18 12.6
50 Hawaii 2.71 6.7

 

 

Since Frank is still trying to figure things out; I’m going to keep this real simple. Let’s just look at the top ten states for the two variables; Firearm Related Homicides and Firearm Ownership. One of the most common gun control mantras is “more guns = more death”

Top Ten by Firearm Homicide Rate Top Ten by Ownership
1.  Alaska 5.  Wyoming
2.  Louisiana 1.  Alaska
3.  Alabama 6.  Montana
4 . Mississippi 37. South Dakota
5.  Wyoming 4. Mississippi
6.  Montana 7. Arkansas
7.  Arkansas 12. West Virginia
8.  Oklahoma 17. Idaho
9.  Tennessee 3 Alabama
10. New Mexico 23. North Dakota

The Numbers in both columns are the states’ ranking for Firearm related homicide rate. So Frank, if More Guns equals more firearm related deaths; why does Wyoming have a higher percentage of firearms but fewer deaths then Alaska or Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi?

Why does Mississippi have more firearms then Louisiana but Louisiana have more firearm related homicides?

Background Checks — A response

to Frank over at the self titled “Perfectly Frank” blog to  his comments on this post. I want to focus on background checks but as usual there is something that need to be addressed before we can get there.

Frank, I really appreciated your comment:

You seem to be a great deal more educated on gun control than I am. That was a theme I intended to convey in my original post. I want to get smarter on these subjects.

and that is why I do spend time and effort to respond to blogs like yours. I will be glad to continue the discussion which has been congenial so far. I only replied here because the formatting of links, which I like to include, is harder for me in comments. I am glad you want to ‘get smarter’ on these subjects because that is my goal — to get smarter on how ‘gun control advocates’ feel about certain issues. I started off responding to blogs, seeking to understand the issue and the implications. I benefited from great conversations with some but found many more ‘gun control advocates’ who are / were not interested in conversation or learning more. So your approach, tone and willingness to learn is refreshing.

Next up

If the number of legally owned guns skyrockets in this country while the number of accidental or malicious deaths plummet near zero, I’d be as happy as everyone else.

I would ask you to do a little research on the number of firearms sold recently and the number of firearm related deaths and injuries. I could give you those numbers but determining them yourself will give you more ownership of the data. If you need help finding sources, I would be glad to point you to the sources I commonly use or work that others have done.

Okay, now lets get into the meat of the subject which you brought up with this statement:

Perhaps once I do enough research, straw purchase laws won’t make sense to me. I tend to think background check laws do. I’d be curious to know your position on those. Personally I don’t think the goal should be to punish the legal owner of a weapon for the things that weapon is used for. It’s more a tracking thing I suppose. If we’re to try and keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals or the mentally ill, some tracking seems to make sense. Perhaps requiring that gun owners be licensed to own and operate a gun, makes more sense? We certainly have laws that require that for other categories of inanimate objects. Nobody would fault you if I stole your car and ran over a mall full of people, but we certainly require licenses for their operation and their registration.

I do have to say before we start that you’ve hit upon one of the most trite comparisons that never works out well for gun control advocates in my opinion. I’ll let the my response be what the wordmaster”Lawdog” wrote 8 years ago.

As I mentioned before, it is hard to separate out the law from how it is enforced and applied, it is definitely the case here with background checks. So let’s talk about background checks at retail establishments to start. First, there is the adage “time is money” – a background check on good days adds just a few minutes to the process but when there is a strain on the system, say “Black Friday” the wait time can be half an hour or longer. People I talked to reported in some cases having to wait over 2 hours for the store and the system to process their background checks. And when the system is shut down people can not exercise their rights

System outages are a major culprit. Numerous outages, such as the 4-day outage that coincided with the Million Mom March for gun control, have shut down the NICS for hours or even days at a time. When the system is down, neither Federal nor State background checks can proceed and gun sales cannot occur. According to FBI data, system outages amounted to over 215.5 hours of down time last year alone.

That was in the year 2,000 — basically 8.9 days the system didn’t work at all. Some states require the checks to be processed through their internal systems; which also suffer from the same problem.

So we have a system where literally our liberty, our ability to exercise a Constitutionally protected, Specifically enumerated right is dependent on the government. And a government willing to shut down that system at times. I find that unacceptable. By the way, I hope you noted who was in the White House in the year 2000 —  one of the best sayings about enacting a law is you get to write any law you want but just imagine your worst enemy using it against you. Sure you want to write it?

Next we have to look at “Does it Work?”

To understand the value of background checks it is essential to understand the source of crime guns. Several sporadic attempts have been made to learn how criminals acquire guns. For example, a 2000 study by the ATF found the following distribution of sources
Source                                           Percentage
Straw purchase                           47%
Stolen                                            26%
          Store                       14%
         Residence               10%
         Common carrier     2%
Unregulated private seller       20%
Gun shows/flea markets        13%
Retail diversion                        8%

From a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo (PDF alert) – nearly 50% of firearms are obtained through straw purchases — a person buying a firearm for someone prohibited from purchase. Do you really think that Wally  Wannabe Gangster is going to care that he is supposed to get another background check when he ‘sells’ the firearm to someone in his gang?  How about Gidget the Girlfriend to Mark Meth-head?
Don’t take my word for it; from the same memo-

A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.
(emphasis mine – Bob)

Let put that into practical terms. Chicago Illinois has a state requirement that all purchasers of firearms – private or commercial – must possess a state Firearm Owners Identification card. — Basically a license to even own a firearm; background check included as part of that process. Fort Worth Texas does not have such a requirement; private sales are the business of the two people involved.

Chicago has a homicide rate of 18.5 per 100,000 people. Fort Worth Texas — 5.7 per 100,000. Okay so that might not be fair because of size; how about Dallas Texas –12.4 per 100,000. So if Dallas and Fort Worth have much lower homicide rates; the question has to be asked, why?

And before we move on, I hope you caught the significance of this “this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.” – in other words, it is entirely possible that by implementing background checks we could increase the number of burglaries, robberies and thefts ! Talk about the law of unintended consequences. How many more people would be hurt because criminals are breaking into homes seeking firearms and finding the owner there?

And that brings us to other practical points — such as, what about those who already possess firearms?

I own – well let’s just say more than one and less than I want :) — but what purpose does it serve to conduct yet another check on someone who already owns firearms?   How about the people that don’t have access to a close gun store or licensed dealer — not all of our population lives minutes away from a 7/11 much less a gun store.

And how about family members; while we know some people will break the law because that is their nature, to assume that everyone will is very insulting. So why should a person have to get a background check done when getting a gift from a family member or friend?

Let’s turn to some numbers – again per the Bureau of Justice Statistics -(PDF alert) -there were 478,400 firearm related violent crimes. In 2011, the National Instant Criminal system (and isn’t that a fun thing to know — each and every time some wants to exercise their rights- they are suspected of being a criminal until cleared by the government) — conducted 16,454,951 checks, Even if every firearm was used by a different criminal and purchased that year; that means only 2.96% of the gun owners were involved in a crime. And we know how ridiculous that is!

Why do we know how ridiculous that is? Because the ATF is helpfully tracking information about how long it takes firearms to show up at crime scenes — the so called “time to crime” metric —

The 2013 report includes a state-by-state breakdown of types and calibers of firearms recovered and traced, source states, criminal offenses associated with the crime guns, time-to-crime, and age ranges of crime gun possessors at the time of recovery. Key findings of this year’s report include pistols as the most common firearm type recovered and traced, 9 mm as the top caliber recovered and traced, and 11.08 years as the average time-to-crime for crime guns recovered and traced in the U.S. and its territories.

11.08 years. Over a decades worth of actually stolen firearms, firearms falsely reported as stolen, etc are already out there (Let’s forget the fact that a decent machine shop can turn out firearms by the dozen easily). Criminals are aware of this, aware of the abysmal closure rate of crimes and are willing to risk it for immediate gratification. Oh…did I forget to cite the closure rates for crimes?
Let me do that now:

  • In 2010, 47.2 percent of violent crimes and 18.3 percent of property crimes in the Nation were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. 
  • Among violent crimes, 64.8 percent of murder offenses were cleared, 40.3 percent of forcible rape offenses were cleared, 28.2 percent of robbery offenses were cleared, and 56.4 percent of aggravated assault offenses were cleared.
  • Clearance data for property crimes revealed that 21.1 percent of larceny-theft offenses were cleared, 12.4 percent of burglary offenses were cleared, and 11.8 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared. 
  • Nineteen percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means in 2010. 
  • 34.3 percent of arson offenses cleared involved juveniles (persons under age 18); this was the highest percentage of all offense clearances involving only juveniles.

This affects the goal of background checks in a major way – there a large chance a firearm used in a crime will never be recovered (can’t trace what you don’t have).

 

Well it seems Frank has replied, not here unfortunately, but on his own blog with a new post. One that includes this comment:

 

Through this reading and my conversations with Bob I realized something.  I’m not being as genuine as I should be and I should work to fix that. The bully was right and I’m asking Bob to defend concerns that are secondary to the real issue.

So I’m going to stop mincing words.

It is my belief that there should be far fewer guns in this country.  There should be a very limited set of people with access to guns.  For the most part, most guns are unnecessary and extremely dangerous.  They are a cowards weapon meant to intimidate or bully at their best and make it very easy to murder another human being from a safe distance at their worst. I have had the few guns I’ve owned over the years destroyed and I think most every other gun in the country should also be destroyed

Still trying to be amenable and friendly in tone (for the most part) with Frank. We can and should discuss the issue with the least amount of rancor possible.